ArticleAEM education and training2025
The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) in emergency medicine: The internal validity of the SLOE 2.0.
Article in AEM education and training, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variability in Standardized Letters of Evaluation: A Multi-Institutional Review of EM Residency Based Versus Non-Residency Based Faculty Evaluation.AEM education and training · 2026Article
- The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) in emergency medicine: The internal validity of the SLOE 2.0.AEM education and training · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) is a crucial component of emergency medicine (EM) residency applications. Initially developed in 1995 and revised to electronic SLOE (eSLOE) 2.0, this tool aims to provide a standardized evaluation of medical students. Objective: This study aimed to conduct internal validation by analyzing the distribution and correlation of scores in eSLOE 2.0 and identify any ranking skew. Methods: A multi-institutional cross-sectional study conducted using eSLOE 2.0 data from applicants to five geographically diverse U.S. EM residency programs during the 2022-2023 application cycle. Data from 2891 eSLOE 2.0 s across 1633 applicants were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square, and Spearman's rho. Results: Scores for all questions were moderately left-skewed. The mean scores for all part B questions were above 4.0. Strong correlations were found between part A and B scores with anticipated guidance (AG) and rank list (RL) positions. The AG had a higher correlation with RL positions than grades. The mean RL score indicated that the average student fell between the middle and top thirds. Conclusions: The study demonstrates left skew in eSLOE 2.0 scoring, including a higher prevalence of scores in the fully and mostly entrustable ranges for part A and the consistently high scores in part B.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.